There were many things that might have put a person in a bad mood yesterday morning. The fact that it was raining, of course – that was a bit annoying, and on a weekend, too. And it was the last day of August, which is always a bit sad.

But actually, it was watching Sky News that ruined my day. On the Sunday morning programme, an American female commentator claimed that McCain's choice of vice-presidential candidate, Sarah Palin – the anti-abortion, anti-gay rights, pro-oil drilling and advocate of teaching of creationism in schools – was hugely exciting "because she's a woman".

Is gender really more important than policies? Maybe I'm just a silly girl who doesn't understand anything but I always thought the reason we wanted to see a woman in power was to promote female-friendly policies, not because we just wanted someone – anyone who, you know, also wears a bra like us because, like, that would be just awesome. OK, so she wants to overturn Roe v Wade: she also has ovaries and that's the main thing.

Jon Stewart, the American political satirist, has already been to town on this issue. In a recent episode of his popular TV programme The Daily Show, his female reporter, Samantha Bee, po-facedly with tongue firmly in cheek, told a seemingly befuddled Stewart that, no matter what, she would vote for Palin because she has "a vagina … and boobies."

To see her nomination as a the smart alternative for disaffected Hillary supporters, is utterly ridiculous. Everything she stands for is against what women, and in particular the women who were such staunch supporters of Clinton, have fought for in the past few decades. As the American website Jezebel pointed out on Friday, sometimes a vote for a woman is not a vote for women.

Personally speaking, as an American woman with a vote, I find Palin's nomination so insulting that, frankly, I'd like McCain more if he told me not to tax my little lady brain with trying to figure out how to fill in the ballot form. It assumes that women voters are so silly and so desperate that all the Republicans need to do is throw a woman – any woman – onto the podium and we'll all squeal excitedly and tick his box. After all, we don't bother with looking at her political record: just look at her long pretty hair! I bet she uses Pantene, too, just like me.

One of the Republicans' main criticisms of Obama has been his relative inexperience, and it's a criticism that has stuck. But they are so certain that what the party needs to do is to pull a woman – any woman – out of the hat that they have plumped for Palin, whose experience amounts to two years as governor of Alaska and mayor of a town with a population of 7,000, thereby disabling one of their biggest arguments against the Democrats. Fox News, bending itself into a pretzel this weekend trying to big up Palin, claimed that it was nonsense to say she had no international experience: after all, "Alaska is right next to Russia." But of course – she probably had nice little chats with Putin across the North Pacific Ocean every afternoon.

Palin is also currently facing an investigation for "abuse of power" because she is accused of trying to get her sister's ex-husband fired from his job as a state trooper. That is how desperate the Republicans were to drag some women out onto the podium: they've chosen one who is already in trouble and she hasn't even got to the White House yet.

Of course, I speak from a privileged position. I was lucky enough to be born after the era of bra-burning. Others have already fought causes and cleared my path so effectively that I have never, as far as I know, suffered from the effects of sexism. None the less, I honestly do understand the desire to see a woman on Pennsylvania Avenue and I appreciate how much this would mean to a lot of other women in America.

Yet to decide to vote for Palin just because she's a woman is as simplistic and narrow-minded as to not vote for her for the same reason. It is also patronising to women: is that really the only way a woman can gain power, by riding on the ticket of her gender? Yes, it would be marvellous to have a female vice-president. But that warm and fuzzy glow might burn out when this same woman begins banning abortion and legislating the teaching of creationism in schools. It's all very well to see her nomination as a triumphant symbol – but symbols are theoretical and politicians are very, very real. One need only think of Cheney to appreciate how much a vice-president's beliefs can affect people's lives. Moreover, were McCain-Palin to be elected, it is a very real possibility that she would have to takeover as president from the 72-year-old McCain.

Of course it would be nice to see a woman in power and therefore proving that girls can play as well as boys. But Palin is not the gender representative that we have waited for all this time. To vote for Palin would do women no favours, generally or personally.